Since you named this section as addressing me, I’ll respond. If you get the feeling that we’re starting to go in circles - you’d not be the only one.
The claim that “women in the game face inequalities more disproportionately than men do” is a truth claim and now… neither you, nor Kenny, nor Denise, nor anyone else has provided any evidence of it. Simply put, a few anecdotes and hearsay do not make a broad community-wide state as the claim is put forth. And in fact, what I found in a few minutes of Google searching regarding Denise’s own presence and status in the Pokemon community speak against this claim.
Furthermore, even if we - the playerbase - accepted this claim outright with no question, it in no way justifies framing and addressing the issue from the perspective of socially divisive Feminist gender theory as Kenny did which intentionally divides communities into (opposing) groups and polarizes them (which - if you’ve read any feminist literature - is exactly what it’s designed to do) even as it “preaches” unity and inclusiveness.
The fact that each successive supporter of Kenny’s article has now come on here to essentially parrot the “this topic isn’t political” line when in fact, no one said the topic of an inclusive community (I call it good sportsmanship, pick whatever term you like) was in itself political or gendered. But to specifically address the topic in the framework of Feminist terms and accusations… and further to act as if that’s the ONLY legitimate way to address it … frankly causes one to wonder where you all were indoctrinated at and whether your minds are truly so small as to think this is the only way to address this topic. I would encourage you to think outside of such narrow-minded thinking.
I don’t mean to say this to be rude, but clearly if it’s been spoken against and not one of you has even stopped to say “Well, that’s an interesting objection. Would you share with us a better way you feel that would reach the same goal” and instead carry on repeatedly untruthful characterizations of the objection (the strawman fallacy) and then arguing against it - at what point do you realize your conversation isn’t even being honest to the actual conversation being had?
The argument was that it is the clear expectation of the paying members that Sixprizes promoted itself to be a resource about the game. I stand by that characterization. I’ve been actively using Sixprizes for a year and a half (which I understand is a drop in the bucket to some) but I have seen it go through the more recent changes. Nothing in that led me to believe that Sixprizes was intentionally branching into controversial politically charged rhetoric to allow advocating of unfounded claims of “toxicity” and “misogyny” in the playerbase. I challenge you to show me where this was publicly presented to the Sixprizes users prior to this article.
Further, I did talk with both Adam and Christopher privately and I dialogued with Christopher in this thread and it was the general response that they did not intend that giving Kenny a “platform” amounted to official endorsement of his views and comments. In light of that, I did amend my earlier comments with notes to reflect the acknowledgement that this wasn’t an official view of Sixprizes. In fact, their professionalism and business practices (which were admirable in my view) were a compelling reason for me to consider continue paying for the other content that Sixprizes offers that I do find useful.
I will reiterate again, if the intent is to take the website in a political direction, that should not be subtly hidden and effected with articles expressing controversial viewpoints (then duly distanced by Sixprizes staff). It should be notified openly - and the userbase given the opportunity to continue or walk away from the “new direction” the site will take. This is simply the respectful position any business should take with its customers (since we’re talking about being respectful of people). I affirmed from the beginning it is the right of the Sixprizes team to take the site in any direction they choose. But there’s a big difference in doing so openly and doing so underhandedly.
It is my impression at this time that Sixprizes simply allowed Kenny to publish a controversial article. And Christopher said that an opposing view would even be similarly entertained if it was desired. Fair enough. I won’t let my son read Sixprizes then. But I can understand where they as an editorial team are coming from.
If that changes, I will absolutely re-evaluate my position on Sixprizes as a site. And I think others should as well.
I wholeheartedly agree that encouraging basic human decency is something we should all seek and support. That is NOT A GENDERED VALUE STATEMENT. Do I need to repeat that? It is NOT a gendered issue to encourage all players… to treat all players … with basic human dignity and decency.
Thus, you are supporting my position - not Kenny’s or Denise’s.
Why in the world would we take a non-gendered issue like basic human decency - and choose to address it in the framework of ultimately divisive terms and groups that Feminist gender theory forces into the discussion? However can you rationalize the logic of calling men “toxic” and “misogynist” (terms of alienation that divide and put people on the defensive by the way) under the guise of advocating “inclusiveness”?
This is the same ridiculousness as claiming to be tolerant of everything except intolerance. In other words, it’s logical hogwash. Claiming to be tolerant of everything except those whose views you don’t like is not tolerance at all. It’s bigotry masquerading under the guise of virtue signaling. Claiming to be inclusive of everyone but those whose views you don’t like isn’t inclusiveness at all. It’s the opposite. It’s a lie. Please stop perpetuating the lies.
Again, if a person cannot comprehend of a way to promote inclusiveness for ALL… without attacking a group to do it (understanding that attacking anyone isn’t being inclusive) then THAT person has the problem. THEY are hypocritical. THEY are bigoted. THEY are the ones with the blinded paradigm. And it is very likely that the “injustices” they feel are the result of their deepseated (and unacknowledged) bigotry being projected onto the group they despise.
Yes, we, as a community, can and should consider the social dynamics of our interactions with each other. But if the insistence is that we must engage in hypocrisy and alienation language to do it… then I submit that that is - as I said before - not only unproductive, it is counter-productive.
If you choose to argue something I said, please engage on the necessity to frame this discussion in gender polarizing terms and frameworks. THAT is the contention. For you or anyone else to keep talking as if the objection was to basic human decency is at this point rank dishonesty to what’s been said - over… and over… and over again.